1979 (4) TMI 3 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Acquittal under s. 193, IPC.
2. Acquittal under s. 277 of the I.T. Act.
3. Legality of the evidence presented.

Summary:

1. Acquittal under s. 193, IPC:
The trial court acquitted all three respondents of the charge under s. 193, IPC. The complainant's appeal against this acquittal was dismissed by the High Court, which upheld the trial court's decision. The court found that the evidence presented was insufficient to prove that the respondents had fabricated false documentary evidence for use before the I.T. authorities.

2. Acquittal under s. 277 of the I.T. Act:
The trial court convicted Lal Chand under s. 277 of the I.T. Act but acquitted Mohan Lal and Sohan Lal. Lal Chand's conviction was later overturned by the Additional Sessions Judge, and he was acquitted. The complainant's appeal against Lal Chand's acquittal was also dismissed by the High Court. The court noted that the prosecution failed to prove that the income-tax return and the statements of accounts attached were fabricated documents.

3. Legality of the evidence presented:
The main documentary evidence relied upon by the prosecution was the Dasti Bahi, ex. P.Y., allegedly recovered from the business premises of the respondents. The court doubted the legality of the recovery and the contents of the Dasti Bahi. The court emphasized that no seizure memo was prepared, and no independent corroboration of the recovery was provided. Additionally, the prosecution failed to prove the contents of the Dasti Bahi by leading any legal evidence, such as examining the person who made the entries or someone acquainted with the handwriting. The court also found that the alleged admissions in applications exs. P.A.C., P.A.D., and P.A.F. were not put to the respondents during their examination, and merely admitting signatures on documents does not equate to admitting their contents.

Conclusion:
The High Court upheld the acquittal of all three respondents under s. 277 of the I.T. Act and s. 193, IPC, due to insufficient evidence. The appeals were dismissed, and the court found no force in the arguments presented by the appellants.